A
Note to My Readers: This is an introductory essay that links to parts of my
website that contain the detailed support for my contentions. If anything in
this essay seems unfounded or superficial, I suggest taking the related link to
the more detailed discussion. This is one of several “doorway” essays to my 1,200-page
site, and is not intended to be a stand-alone essay, at least stand-alone
enough to convince readers new to the ideas presented in this essay. I also am
limited by my American heritage. Non-Americans
may find that this essay has limited relevance and usefulness, particularly those
from nations where English is not the official language. For non-Americans, I
define radical left, particularly as compared to liberal left, at
this footnote.[1]

Introduction

This
open letter has been gestating for seventeen years, ever since I began reading
Ralph McGehee’s memoirs and Lies
of Our Times, which Ed Herman edited.
Before long, I was reading everything I could by Noam Chomsky, including Manufacturing
Consent, subscribing to Z Magazine, Covert Action Quarterly and other progressive
periodicals. I began enlarging my home library, which today includes several
hundred volumes devoted to political writings – largely radical left texts. Due
to my adventures while pursuing alternative energy, I became radicalized before
I encountered the radical left, so their work was relatively easy to digest, although
it took me about two years to really understand what Chomsky was saying. I have
received more political education from Chomsky and Herman’s writings than from
any other body of work.

No alternative energy of significance is publicly available
today, and that situation is not due to a lack of viable technologies. During
my adventures, I came to understand that free energy – virtually limitless, non-polluting,
forever renewable, no-operating-cost energy – has
existed for generations, but has been suppressed by the same interests that
wiped us out. Those people essentially run the world. Steven
Greer, who is a leading free energy activist and has had a similarly arduous
journey, met with factions of that global-controlling group about fifteen
years ago, and they informed him that they had paid out $100 billion in quiet money over the past few generations
to ensure that technologies such as free energy and anti-gravity do not become
publicly available. Those payouts are part of their “benign”
tactics. That controlling group begins playing rough only after fools like
us refuse their buyout offers and/or survive their subtle methods of sabotage.
I realized long ago that the technological aspect of free energy is not the most
important one. The political-economic dynamics seem most important, by far, and
many in the radical left are in a position to comprehend them.

After
my radicalizing experience, I spent 12,000 hours of unpaid labor performing the
research, writing and editing (some professionally hired) that resulted in my
1,200-page web site. However, no matter how thoroughly
and conservatively I have documented my journey and the reality I witnessed, the
public’s reaction has been one of denial and indifference about 99% of the time,
with personal attacks fairly common. People cannot
experience the alternative energy milieu’s reality from their armchairs, TVs,
computer screens and cubicles, so those in denial pretend it does not exist if
they are aware of the situation all, even though it affects their lives, humanity
and the planet profoundly. After years and years of largely futile interaction
with the general public, I became selective about whom I interact with. A disinformation
specialist has also been stalking me on the Internet
since 1997.

Some prominent rad lefties have
taken my work seriously when I have written about American mythmaking, such as
turning Christopher Columbus, George
Washington and Junípero Serra into national heroes, but their interest
has been mild when I have tried to engage them on alternative energy realities.
The radical left is one of the few groups I know of that might constructively
engage the alternative energy field’s reality. I have never
seen any group beyond the small specialist community constructively engage that
situation. A healed humanity and planet can be just
around the corner, if enough people can only imagine it.

Economics,
Energy, Scarcity and Abundance

One reason
for this open letter is that the radical left regularly engages economic issues,
and the human journey rides atop our economic reality. Scientists often have
a better understanding of economic reality than economists,
who tend to homogenize everything with money, perform their abstract analyses
and produce misleading results. Energy runs the world economy
and always has, and the recent Peak Oil controversy has brought the issue into
sharper focus. Richard Heinberg has been the leading Peak Oil spokesman in progressive
circles, and an interview with him appearing in Z Magazine inspired two
essays (1, 2) on Peak Oil,
scarcity and Heinberg’s work.[2]

Heinberg
wrote in a semi-ridiculing and dismissive manner
about free energy, and then refused to learn more
about the very situations he dismissed. Heinberg’s solution to the current energy
crisis is eliminating nearly six billion people
(any volunteers?). For all of Heinberg’s failures to investigate what he semi-ridiculed/dismissed,
he and his colleagues understand one issue very well: the industrialized world
is entirely dependent on energy consumption, as have all
civilizations for all time. From the richest and most educated nations to
the poorest and least educated, energy consumption is by far the most important
determinant of their standard of living. Americans
currently live off the backs of eighty “energy slaves,” and they are almost entirely
responsible for our status as history’s richest nation. Noam
Chomsky says that anybody with a functioning brain understands that America’s
invasions of the Middle East and Central Asia are about controlling the world’s
fossil fuel supplies. All other factors are of minor importance.

After
I finished my web site in 2002, I was introduced to R. Buckminster Fuller’s work.
Fuller was one of the West’s first “comprehensivists,” and developed a multidisciplinary
approach for viewing the human journey and its potential. Although his work has
often been neglected, misappropriated and misrepresented since his death, his
comprehensivist approach to humanity’s problems and potential is evident in his written work. Only those who see the big picture
can envision and pursue the big solutions, and Fuller noted that specialization
in science and other pursuits tended to blind those specialists to the bigger
picture. Fuller said that such over-specialization was intentionally encouraged
and made the scientists slaves to the ruling class.
It is another variation of the divide-and-conquer game.

Fuller
stated that humanity had reached the technological level a few generations ago
whereby we could make an unprecedented transition from a world based on scarcity
to one based on abundance. A world based on abundance is necessarily based on
energy abundance. Fuller understood the political-economic dynamics that Chomsky
has been writing about for many years, but waited until
late in his life to begin writing about them, probably to avoid marginalization.
Fuller was also familiar with the global energy racket, and one of
his pupils, Adam Trombly, pursued free energy and barely survived the experience.
Trombly is one of many who have tried bringing free energy to humanity, and all
have been prevented from doing so.

Not
only is there active suppression of anything that can upset the energy racket
and the greatest lever for controlling humanity, humanity readily plays into the
racketeers’ hands. Fuller provided a plausible explanation why people such as
Heinberg refuse to imagine abundance and instead propose hyper-austerity
“solutions” to humanity’s problems. Fuller wrote that for almost the entirety
of human history, only one-in-a-thousand people lived to a ripe old age, and only
one-in-a-hundred-thousand became an economic success, so scarcity and failure have been deeply embedded
into human consciousness. All the previously proposed Utopias and solutions such
as Heinberg’s have been based on shared austerity, and Fuller
noted that they have always been doomed strategies. The only Utopia with
a realistic chance of success is based on abundance, and an abundance-based economic
system is perhaps the only chance we have of averting global catastrophe. Fuller
said that if humanity’s scarcity paradigm was not overturned by the 1980s, our
chances of survival might be less than 50%.
His estimate might be accurate, which is partly why I am writing this essay.
It would not take much effort to topple the scarcity paradigm, but first people
must imagine it.

If all humans had access
to a thousand “energy slaves” and their use caused nobody any harm, including
the environment, that abundance-based reality will beckon. I have spent
more than thirty years pondering it, and I know that I can barely imagine
what it would look like. However, I discovered during my journey that humanity
is currently addicted to scarcity and most people are truly afraid
of abundance. The radical left may be in position to begin making the change,
and what follows is why.

Why
the Radical Left is in Position to Make a Difference

It
took a gradual awakening, culminating with my radicalizing experience at the hands
of the energy gangsters, to understand that the reason why we do not have free
energy today is because personal integrity is the world’s scarcest resource.
It was the primary lesson of my journey, and a sobering one. If humanity cannot
muster sufficient collective integrity, we may be doomed. A world civilization
with people such as George W. Bush on center stage will not survive much
longer. People’s level of caring also seemed directly related to how much awareness
they displayed.

After my radicalizing experience,
I researched, wrote and edited my web site. The process was often spent comparing
my “education” while young to my adult investigations. Much of what I was taught
as a child and young adult was a compendium of lies, whether it was the “news,”
history, or my professional training as an accountant and its
related economic “education.” I began seeing
a common thread, but not until I read Fuller’s work could I fully articulate my
perception: my indoctrination was designed to imbue me with egocentric, scarcity-based
ideologies. I was white, male, intelligent, educated, scientifically trained,
American, human and a capitalist, and each designation elevated me above my fellow
creatures, in order to justify exploiting them, usually economically. If I was
a Christian, that could be added that to the list, because only Christians go
to heaven.

Those scarcity-based ideologies undermine
a person’s ability to comprehend an abundance paradigm. The people I encountered
had invested their economic survival strategies and egos into their ideologies,
and anything that challenged their position was to be avoided at best and attacked-and-destroyed
at worst. Very few could or would comprehend that they were ignoring/attacking
the keys to healing the planet because they would make their survival-oriented
ideologies obsolete. I came to call those scarcity-based ideologies “mind crutches.” Greer recently made almost exactly the same observation.

Laying aside those scarcity-based ideologies is necessary
for imagining a world of abundance. Some ideologies are blatantly
obvious in their scarcity-based nature, while others are subtler.
I eventually learned that only those with sufficient integrity can question their
indoctrination and eventually lay those mind crutches aside. What
immediately struck me when encountering the work of McGehee,
Chomsky, Herman,
Howard Zinn and friends was the high personal
integrity evident in their work. In their analyses, they always pointed the finger
toward themselves, which is a basic ethical principle that few actively practice.
My initial impression of their integrity was reinforced when I eventually contacted
them: they have all been among my most gracious correspondents.

Until
abundance can be imagined, it cannot be pursued, and the global controllers realize
this. Perhaps their greatest triumph in preventing free energy and abundance
from becoming a reality has been making the ideas unimaginable to the vast
majority of humanity. The radical left is in an auspicious position to begin
imagining abundance, because they have already cast aside the most
crippling mind crutches, such as nationalism, capitalism and organized religion.
Other ideologies must also be cast aside, which can be difficult, because ideologies
do not seem like ideologies to those adhering to them, but reality. Beliefs
come from being told something is true. Knowledge comes from the
experience of something being true.

Overcoming
Ideological Barriers to Comprehension

The American
ideologies which are obviously scarcity-based – nationalism,
capitalism and organized religion – comprise the triune “faith” of most Americans,
and are seemingly impossible for people to relinquish these days. In times of
fear, politics shifts to the right, not the left, as people become more self-centered
for survival reasons. If most Americans are currently addicted to their scarcity-based ideologies,
then what? Even in these days of expensive energy, energy
wars and Al Gore playing spokesman for the idea of human-induced
global warming, nobody on the global stage is even hinting that there may
be solutions that dwarf all others. For somebody who has survived
the suppression efforts of those who manage the global energy paradigm, it is
surreal that virtually nobody is mentioning practical solutions to our
civilization-threatening problems.

What follows
is a discussion of the subtler, scarcity-based ideologies that have trapped most
scientists, intellectuals and the educated. Those subtle ideologies are more
insidious than the obvious ones, as they seem to have solid logical and empirical
bases. However, my experiences and research have shown me that they sit on foundations
nearly as flimsy as those that support nationalism, capitalism and organized religion.
Some of those subtler ideologies can be summarized under the categories of scientism,
materialism and rationalism.

The
Myths of Science

An august MIT academic recently
stated that he never saw a scientist say how science should be done – they just
do it. I doubt that professor ever encountered Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov and the “skeptics,” because he would have heard plenty about
how science is supposed to be done, and the difference between “real” science
and “pseudoscience.” Sagan devoted a great deal of his professional life to attacking
“pseudoscience” and its practitioners. With
disturbing frequency, Sagan’s attacks were dishonestly performed. My Internet stalker is a prominent member of the
“skeptical” community, and his work’s dishonesty
is its most salient characteristic.

Sagan’s
“skeptical” work is a prime example of scientism, which is the belief that
the methods of science comprise the only valid path to knowledge. In scientism,
science itself is made an object of worship. The so-called scientific method
is like democracy and free markets – ideals that have never been seen in the real
world, similar to unicorns.[3]
In the West, the official creation story used to be in the book of Genesis, with
God saying “let there be light,” and Adam being created from mud, and Eve from
Adam’s rib. To a significant degree, the Big Bang and evolution is Western science’s
answer to Genesis. The Big Bang is as fantastic as anything in the Bible, with
everything coming from nothing in an instant. Astronomers have challenged the notion of a Big Bang and expanding universe,
and the most prominent Big Bang heretic had to leave the U.S. to pursue his theories.
Darwinian evolution also has its problems.

The
idea of understanding the universe through one’s physical senses and logic has
existed at least since the ancient Greeks. The Catholic Church eradicated the
Greek teachings in the West as pagan, but when the “Reconquest” of the Iberian Peninsula began almost
a thousand years ago, the great Islamic libraries of Moorish Spain became available
to Christian scholars, beginning with the Christian conquest of Toledo in 1085.[4] The ancient Greek teachings were then gradually
reintroduced to the West. Those Greek teachings helped lead to the Renaissance,
Protestant Reformation and diminution of the Church’s power. From Roger Bacon
in the 1200s to Francis Bacon in the 1600s, logic
and empirical investigation gradually rose to prominence. During the Enlightenment
of the 1700s, science and reason largely supplanted religion as the interpreter
of how the universe functioned, and by the late 1800s, scientific inquiry had
fully triumphed over religious dogma. The rise of science was integral to the
Industrial Revolution.

However,
science began acting like a religion from the early days, and its terminology
reflects it. Today, we have “laws of physics.” There are no laws of physics,
only theories, but to call a theory a law invests it with a quasi-religious certitude,
and today’s scientific establishment punishes its heretics with the same zeal
as medieval inquisitors did, if not with the same inquisitorial equipment. For
instance, the so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics has significant experimental
data that calls it into question.

However, the
initial discovering scientist of a possible second-law-defying phenomenon (who
had Einstein’s interest) had his equipment destroyed, his books burned,
and died in a U.S. prison. Ironically, he was
a Jew who escaped Hitler’s Germany, and as he watched his books burn in a U.S.
government bonfire, he expressed his dismay that after escaping Hitler’s Germany,
he never suspected that he would see his books burned again. I encountered another
scientist (from MIT) who produced experimental data that contradicted the hallowed
Second Law of Thermodynamics, and he was murdered
in 2004.[5] I believe
that the dire fates of those scientists who challenge the entrenched dogma may
be best understood by comprehending the political-economic dynamics surrounding
those “laws” of physics.

An
informative example of how theories become prominent, dogmatized and the foundation
of economic rackets is Louis Pasteur’s career. He was a chemist whose life’s
ambition was becoming rich and famous. His initial
discovery that led to fame – discovering chiral molecules – may have been
his discovery, although Pasteur’s published account
of his discovery was self-serving. Pasteur’s forays into biology and medicine,
however, are haunted by the suspicion that he may have plagiarized others in his
quest for fame and wealth, Antoine Béchamp
most notably. A Harvard professor wrote a book in the 1970s that demonstrated
how the story taught to college students about Pasteur’s first triumph in the
life sciences – his disproval of spontaneous generation theory – was a deplorable
example of “Whig history” in science, where students
are taught expedient fairy tales. A review
of microbiology textbooks written a generation after that formidable work
demonstrates that Whig history is still practiced regarding Pasteur’s triumph.
Howard Zinn capably wrote about how damaging such “history” is
to those who believe it.

The life sciences and medicine are rife with that kind
of mythmaking and outright lying in the service of economic empires. For instance,
today’s orthodox cancer treatments do not extend
the lives of those they are used on, but make many billions of dollars each
year for the medical establishment. Similarly, the most lucrative surgery in
America, coronary bypass surgery, also does not appreciably extend the lives of those
it is used on. If those immensely lucrative treatments do not extend the patients’
lives, can we call them complete failures, particularly since they are also agonizing
treatments? Also, can we suspect that those worse-than-worthless treatments are
also part of a racket, especially when treatments that do extend the lives
of the patients, and do so cheaply and harmlessly, are mercilessly suppressed?
Does it really stretch the imagination that far
to suspect that the right and left hands are aware of each other and may be directed
by the same brain?

Life sciences are not as
“hard” as the physical sciences, so maybe we really know something in the
physical sciences. By the late 1800s, the rationalist-materialist paradigm was
firmly entrenched as the West’s new “religion.” Scientists believed that they
were dealing with the real world with their
methods. Then something strange happened. An obscure, 26-year-old Swiss patent
clerk proposed the special theory of relativity, and twentieth-century
physics was born. Everything became relative, with no absolutes, except perhaps
change. A generation later, a number of young scientists proposed a theory to
describe how atoms behaved. Quantum physics was thus born, and one of its cornerstones
was the uncertainty principle, authored by a 23-year-old scientist whose
theory became clear to him during a fevered weekend. Relativity and quantum theory
are the two primary pillars of today’s physics. Einstein and Heisenberg had to
thank flashes of creative insight for their theories,
not cold reason. I have known some of the greatest inventive minds of the 20th century,
and they also had instants of creative insight to thank for their breakthroughs,
not reason.

The most influential study of the
scientific milieu in the past fifty years is Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn was another MIT academic, and he coined
the modern definition of the term paradigm. Kuhn argued that scientists
did not adopt new paradigms because of the persuasiveness of the scientific evidence,
but because scientists chose to believe
the new paradigm. The dominant theories of today’s physics arrived through
moments of intuitive insight and state that everything is relative, that little,
if anything, is certain, everything changes, and that scientific paradigms prevail
because scientist have chosen to believe in them. Of all of today’s theories
of physics, Einstein had perhaps the most confidence in the Second
Law of Thermodynamics. If that one falls, which ones might not? The so-called
Second Law helps define the scarcity-based paradigm that prevails today among
the scientifically trained.

Einstein
and Heisenberg were, to one degree or another, mystics,
as have been almost all of physics’ giants. Einstein believed that the universe
was intelligently designed, and he cheerfully
admitted that modern science knew almost nothing about how the universe worked.
Einstein and friends largely rejected the West’s rationalist-materialist paradigm.
Isaac Newton is considered history’s most influential scientist, but devoted most
of his life to alchemy and likened his work to a boy
playing on the beach, being diverted with pebbles and shells, while the vast
ocean of the universe had yet to be explored. James Jeans wrote that the twentieth
century’s breakthroughs in physics demonstrated to scientists that they were still
imprisoned in Plato’s Cave,
still watching shadows on the wall. If the leading
figures of the hardest of sciences did not believe that the picture that science
tells us depicts reality, why should anybody else? A mystical/spiritual perspective has nothing whatsoever to do with
organized religion, and organized religion is often the mystic’s greatest assailant.
Ken Wilber argued that the giants of physics became
mystics because they had seen how science failed to explain the universe. It
may be the other way around, and their mystical orientation produced their breakthroughs.
Nearly everybody whom I respect in the free energy field is also, to one degree
or another, a mystic.

There
are many related dogmas that accompany the rationalist-materialist paradigm.
Two common reactions among the scientifically trained to the idea of intelligent
life existing elsewhere in the universe are that it would not or could not come
here. That first reaction is a projection of human motivation onto extraterrestrial
intelligent life, in a vacuum of knowing just what may influence such extra-terrestrial
thinking, and the second projects our primitive understanding of the “laws of
physics” onto what technologies are “possible.” Both objections beg the question.
Two years ago, I stood in a field with aerospace
and military personnel and watched intelligently piloted, almost certainly extraterrestrial
(ET), craft reveal themselves in the sky on request. I
went again the next year, and received a similar show. There is still debate and controversy on an issue that is easily
settled for those who simply go see for themselves.

Greer
is also a leading ET activist, because ETs and free energy are conjoined. Greer
staged U.S. Congressional hearings on the ET issue in 1997 (co-chaired by Apollo
14’s Ed Mitchell, and they had several hundred witnesses willing to testify, mostly
military personnel) and he nearly died soon thereafter of artificially induced
cancer, while other members of his team did not
survive the experience. In the early 1990s, he briefed the sitting
director of the CIA, and the sitting U.S.
president avidly read his briefing materials. He was then invited to meet
members of the group that runs the world, and they told him that sitting U.S.
presidents and CIA directors were completely ignorant about how the world is really
run. They also told him about the $100 billion in quiet money they have paid out to
prevent free energy and related technologies from becoming publicly available.

That recently murdered
free energy scientist resigned from MIT in protest when he discovered that
MIT had fraudulently manipulated its experimental data in order to dismiss cold
fusion. Arthur C. Clarke called the dismissal
of cold fusion possibly one of the greatest scandals in the history of science.

The ideologies of scientism,
rationalism and materialism are all scarcity-based and have served to straightjacket
the minds of scientists and others into believing what is possible and what is
not, and those blinded scientists have almost completely abandoned a principal
tenet of scientific investigation, that of observation. The scientific
establishment ridiculed reports of Edison’s light
bulb and the Wright brothers’ airplane, claiming that both were
“impossible,” and could not be bothered to go see it for themselves. Such mindlessness
is alive and well today in the halls of science and
technology, and may well be worse today than it was in the days of Edison and
the Wright brothers. I have had numerous interactions with
physicists and scientists regarding free energy realities, and I can never get
them dislodged from their armchairs long enough to look into it. Instead, they
engage me in circular arguments that run like this:

Free energy is contrary to the
laws of physics and therefore impossible;

The
suppression of free energy is an unbelievable conspiracy theory, and you can’t
suppress something that does not exist;

If
you can give me a working free energy device that I can study, then I might believe
that free energy is possible;

If
you cannot give me a free energy device, it means that free energy’s impossibility
is the most likely reality, not its suppression, because I cannot imagine anybody
wanting to suppress something like free energy, even if it was possible;

Thank you for your time, but my armchair
is very comfortable; I’ll sit here and wait for you to deliver me a free energy
machine, but I doubt you will deliver one to me, because such a device is impossible.

I
had a similar exchange with a famous person in the high-tech field in 2006. After
more interaction with various people in 2006, something I had seen Herman and
Chomsky write about finally became clear: most people are incapable of being rational when their survival-based
ideologies are challenged, especially those who fancy themselves to be
intelligent and educated; their defense mechanisms are just slightly more sophisticated
than most. That situation leads to the question of whether humanity is really
a sentient species, and if so, if sentience really means much.

The
reasons for such responses from the scientifically trained, I believe, are several.
One is that many scientists have mental and physical attributes that have been
described by many terms over the years, including “nerd.” As psychology has been
“advancing,” they have found that the qualities that make people “nerds” are partly
a reflection of their particular talents. There seems to be a range of these
qualities, with autism on the far end, Asperger’s Syndrome next to it, with hyperlexia
and other “disorders” nearer to “normal.” People in the autism spectrum
often have unusual mental and creative abilities, but also tend to have poor social
skills and other problems (such as clumsiness or poor dexterity). Today, it is
surmised that Newton, Einstein and Bill Gates had/have symptoms that place them
in the autism spectrum, possibly with Asperger’s Syndrome. Those scientists in
the autism spectrum relatively easily understand the abstract concepts common
to math and science, but can be oblivious to body language and other cues required
to socially navigate. They consequently tend to have poor social lives and a
stunted understanding of the human condition. That dynamic is probably related
to the naiveté of scientists that Fuller observed.

Another reason is their
political indoctrination. About half of all American scientists work for the
military-industrial complex. If we add the medical-industrial complex and civilian
high technology, that group probably includes more than 80% of America’s scientifically
trained. I work in the civilian high-technology field myself, and right wing
political views predominate. The military-industrial complex is also heavily
right wing in its political orientation. I have many friends and relatives who
work in those environments. For instance, one relative works for a military contractor
and recently said that the only show that played on the lunchroom television was
Fox News, and nobody really seemed to mind. One
day, he changed the channel and fled the room when nobody was around. It was
turned back to Fox News almost immediately. Most people will never overcome
their indoctrination, and when their bread is buttered by a highly slanted political
culture, there are few incentives to ever learn any differently – except a love
of the truth. The likelihood of a scientist waking up to political reality in
that environment is almost zero. I have subscribed to Z Magazine since
the early 1990s, and have read all manner of progressive periodical and book.
I cannot recall ever seeing an article in any of those publications that
was authored by a scientist in the physical sciences. As Noam Chomsky has discussed
for many years, the U.S. military establishment heavily funded American universities
during the Cold War, and his fellow MIT faculty are mostly right-wingers.

Ironically, Chomsky’s peers at MIT find his political
views strange but non-threatening, but a few miles away at Harvard, the seat of
the liberal establishment, Chomsky is regarded as the devil incarnate. That is
because Chomsky is a true leftist, and his positions expose the liberal
left’s fraudulent stances, which are every bit as imperialist as right-wingers’
are, but they concoct more humane rhetoric. That Chomsky’s work even exists demonstrates
that the liberal left’s work is not very left at all, and is just more apologetics
for empire.

Related to the political indoctrination
of the scientifically trained is their economic indoctrination. I work near Microsoft,
almost in sight of Bill Gates’ house, and the prevailing economic viewpoint of
Microsoft employees is a belief in the unbridled “free market” as they try to
get rich by working for a monopoly. They also have strongly “libertarian” views.

In summary, scientists and technical professionals receive
ample rewards from their membership in America’s more lucrative establishments,
and rarely have the motivation, ability or opportunity to successfully study evidence
that contradicts the paradigms they have been indoctrinated into. In addition,
there is often a genuine fear of straying from the herd, and great rewards reaped
for quietly serving in their soft berths. That is not a pointed indictment of
scientists, as this dynamic has long been observed to be common to all Americans, if not all people. Few have
ever had a productive reaction to the evidence
of how the energy racket really works. The danger is thinking that scientists
are less susceptible to such irrationalities, when sometimes they are more
susceptible. Very few of them have what it takes
to effectively investigate/evaluate/pursue free energy.

Conscious
Control of the World Economy

My baptism-by-fire
in the alternative energy field taught me many lessons. That the global controllers existed and were vigilant was not
my journey’s big surprise, although they inflicted great suffering onto us. My
big surprise was how easily humanity plays into their hands, and my primary delusion
took me the longest to shed because I did not want to believe
what I was seeing. I finally had to admit it, after having my face rubbed in
it for years. To revisit the high ethical ground that Chomsky
and friends regularly stand on, the most ethical position regarding the situation
is not to focus on what they do, but on what we can do. The global
controllers cannot be beaten at their game, and exposing them is a perilous and probably futile task.
The best we can do is making them obsolete.

When
numerous family members and friends attacked and/or abandoned me and/or my partner,
as he sat in jail and I was going bankrupt, I was in shock and dismay for a long
time. I thought they knew what motivated me, if not my partner. In their
worldview, only criminals go to jail and greedy get-rich-quick artists usually
get what they deserve, and they chose to believe the blatant lies spewed by the
prosecution and local
media over my testimony. Some never even asked for my side of the story,
because the newspaper and TV news are obviously paragons of truth. Greer cited
a similar situation with an ET whistleblower and his son. The son thought
his father was crazy, until he encountered the identical situation during his
career. If sons think their fathers are crazy for telling the truth about what
is really happening, what chance does somebody like me have of convincing the
general public about the stark realities behind the world economy?

When
I began engaging the public via the Internet after publishing my original website
in 1996, people’s reactions were educational. They either completely denied that
the kinds of suppression efforts we were subjected to even exist, or they believed
the global controllers were the reason why we do not have free energy today.
In my experience, neither perception is accurate. I estimate that the global
controllers and their antics only account for about
5-10% of why humanity does not benefit today from free energy, anti-gravity and
an abundance paradigm.

Putting golden handcuffs
on ten thousand people is an impressive effort, and $100
billion dollars is a tidy sum. The global controllers have probably also
spent hundreds of billions of dollars on their surveillance efforts and bludgeoning
people like my former partner and me. They have a lot of blood on their hands.
Half a trillion dollars, however, is a pittance to pay for ensuring that humanity
is mired in economic scarcity and easily manipulated. Far more important is how
humanity plays along. In 1984, George Orwell wrote
that the masses could throw off the elite manipulators like a horse shakes off
flies, if they woke up only a little.[6]
After the ordeal in Ventura was over, I realized that a hundred
people of high commitment and integrity could easily bring free energy to
the public. I also slowly realized that those hundred people might not exist.
Therefore, I have tried a strategy that is less risky
to its participants – it only asks that people become aware. If enough
collective sentience and integrity can be applied to merely attempting to understand
and discuss the free energy milieu’s reality, it may catalyze enough awareness
so humanity can go over the top. However, I have yet to find a group willing
to lay aside its scarcity-based ideologies in pursuit of a healed humanity and
planet.

As I began reading Chomsky’s work and
digesting the radical left’s perspective, it quickly became evident that structural
analysis was preferred over “conspiracy theories” to explain how the world works.
I noticed a visceral, almost violent, aversion amongst the radical left to the
notion that aspects of the global political-economic system are consciously managed
through surreptitious means. I also noticed that, with rare exceptions such as
David Edwards, there were no religious people
among the radical left’s members, and the rationalist-materialist paradigm seemed
firmly entrenched, as it is with most scientists.

In
early 1989, before I mortgaged my life to help free my partner from jail, I
met a policeman who helped prevent me from wasting my time begging the federal
government to intervene. His advice directly led to my partner’s release from
jail. That policeman also wrote a book about
his adventures in Southern California, adventures that he almost
did not survive. In his book, he recounted an extraordinary event that transpired
in late 1963. The policeman was Audie Murphy’s friend. Murphy was America’s most decorated war hero and a friend of Bill
Decker, who was Dallas County’s sheriff. Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald as
he was being transferred to Decker’s custody. In December 1963, Murphy, Decker,
my policeman friend and his partner met with a frightened John Tower, who revealed
Oswald’s true involvement in the John F. Kennedy assassination: Oswald was a military
intelligence operative involved in a covert operation led by E. Howard Hunt that
planned to stage a fake assassination attempt
on JFK and pin it on Cuba, to justify invading it. The operation somehow backfired,
and a fake assassination attempt turned into a real one.

When
I read that story in 1989, it spurred my interest in the JFK assassination. Since
then, I have read about ten thousand pages of JFK material and analyzed a great
deal of the JFK assassination evidence. The center-of-gravity of my research
was comparing how the evidence fit with my friend’s story. I never found any
piece of credible evidence that contradicted his story and, over the years, new
evidence has sometimes provided stunning validation of it. For instance, Hunt’s
brainchild seemed like an offspring or parallel effort to Operation
Northwoods. After I wrote the first draft of this essay, Hunt’s “deathbed
confession” was published
in Rolling Stone Magazine. While his confession’s veracity is suspect,
even doubted by his son, it is another strand of evidence that makes it increasingly
difficult to swallow the “lone nut” story of the JFK hit. In 2006, I became aware
of serious investigation into the Tower/Oswald story, and I briefly joined the
best discussion I have encountered on the issue.
One impressive investigator informed me that he also knew of no reason why the
Tower/Oswald story would not be true.

Because
of my proximity to the situation, I was about 99.9% certain that Oswald was not
JFK’s “lone nut” assassin. The goal of my JFK research was never to “solve the
crime” and unmask the conspirators, but to challenge the legitimacy of a system
that produced the fiction known as The Warren Commission Report. It has
been educational to see how various factions have dealt with the issue. Chomsky
wrote a book that debunked any possible CIA motive for involvement in the JFK
hit.[7] Parts of his thesis I tend to agree
with, because the CIA’s leadership may not have been behind the real
assassination. However, the JFK hit created a small firestorm amongst the radical
left, with Michael Parenti criticizing not only Chomsky’s analysis of the power
structure’s motives regarding JFK, but Parenti also wrote that the left had a
“conspiracy-phobia.”

I
immersed myself in the JFK assassination evidence and interacted with the independent
researcher community. There are undoubtedly disinformation specialists in the
JFK researcher community, both free-lance and on somebody’s payroll, and many
varieties of establishment defenders. However, as with free energy, the collective
behavior of the sincere JFK researchers may be the biggest reason why they have
not gained much traction on the issue. I became involved with other “conspiratorial”
milieus, such as the controversy surrounding the
moon landings, and I have interacted with independent researchers of the events
of September 11, 2001. I had seen enough similarities to generalize about what I saw. With striking similarity
to people’s reactions to free energy, few have had balanced reactions to the idea
that Oswald was not a lone nut or that the attacks on America on 9/11 may have
been at least partly an inside job.

On JFK,
the radical left has largely dismissed any relevance of JFK’s death to U.S. foreign
or domestic policy or world events, so they do not really care if JFK was murdered
by Oswald or not. The liberal left is less dismissive of an American president’s
significance, but generally cannot bring itself to believe that our government
has covered-up the evidence that shows that Oswald did not act alone. The right
wing has its factions too, and one of their predominant themes is that JFK’s presidency
was some kind of Golden Age, and the American nation has been going straight down
the toilet since his murder. Those perspectives can be endlessly debated, but
what interested me was the radical left’s aversion to the idea that such events
might be consciously orchestrated. I have now seen it many times in leftist writings.
An astute, longtime observer
of Chomsky’s work and the fervor surrounding it believes that Chomsky accepts
the official stories of JFK, 9/11 and Pearl Harbor
partly due to his “need to ensure a minimum level of personal security in his
professional life, in other words plain survival for one who is consistently challenging
conventional assumptions.” If true, it is understandable and something that Chomsky
may not even be consciously aware of.

Not long
after 9/11, Z Magazinemade its editorial position clear: it preferred
structural analysis largely to the exclusion of the consideration that
power structure members consciously orchestrated events towards a desired end.
In their article,
Stephen R. Shalom and Michael Albert provided some common critiques of the conspiratorial
mindset and how it can go astray. However, they also use labels such as “conspiracy
buff” and “right wing crazies” as they dismiss the evidence that 9/11 might have
partly been an inside job. Other leftists have produced startling, Limbaugh/Coulter-style
invective regarding those who consider the “inside job” angle of 9/11. George
Monbiot, who seems more liberal left more than radical left,
wrote
in The Guardian in February 2007 that to even consider the “inside
job” aspect of 9/11 was to become a “gibbering idiot” (here is a rebuttal).
Alexander Cockburn, one of Chomsky’s colleagues and an editor of Counterpunch,
which I consider one of America’s best political
publications, has launched vitriol at the “9/11 Conspiracy Nuts”
and other “conspiracy buffs” for a long time. Ironically, Counterpunch
has recently advocated the “Israel knew about 9/11 in
advance” theory. The Israel-involvement theory is no more or less tenable
than many other 9/11 angles, but it appeals to Cockburn’s political sensibilities
(here
is a competent response to those articles).

My
point here is not to debate the facts of 9/11 or the JFK
hit, but to demonstrate how the radical left’s position on those issues is
ideological. In their article,
Shalom/Albert explicitly state that “religious beliefs are not rational or scientific,”
as they observe that “conspiracy theorists” tend to behave like religious zealots
when confronting contrary evidence, and that such theories “lead us to counterproductive
and wrong priorities,” and they state near the end of their article that “If everything
is under the control of powerful and incredibly evil forces, there is no point
in fighting injustice.” They seem to be saying that even acknowledging those
“evil” people and their deeds is to land on the slippery slope that leads to hopelessness
and paranoia. As anybody knows who has actually played at the high levels,
those “evil” people indeed exist, but their control is far less than total, and
is really not that much control at all. For the herd’s size, the shepherds’ task
is surprisingly easy.

Greer
has encountered those who clandestinely run the world and became aware of activities
that he will not disclose publicly, except in passing, because
they are so horrific.[8]
Again, very few have a healthy and balanced reaction to that situation. Most
deny that such people and activities exist. Those that suspect or know
they exist try to expose and/or punish the perpetrators. Both reactions operate
from the victim principle, not from a position of responsibility. A spiritual
perspective may be necessary to both acknowledge the situation and put it
in its proper context, but those operating within the rationalist-materialist
paradigm seemingly cannot accomplish it. Those “bad guys” are an integral and
arguably necessary part of the human family, and cannot be beaten at their game.
Making them obsolete and becoming immune to their manipulations seems to be the
only productive strategy (and one that can eventually redeem them too), a strategy
that few have attempted.

There is a vast and
crucial difference between placing appropriate emphasis on a phenomenon and downplaying/denying
its very existence. “Conspiracies” exist, on a scale that can be difficult to
comprehend for those who have not been on the receiving end of such efforts.
Pretending they do not exist misses the bigger picture. For instance, about the
only reason I mention the global controllers’ efforts to suppress free energy,
anti-gravity and related technologies is to answer the most
common response that I receive to my tale: “If free energy devices were possible,
I should be able to buy one.” Most scientists respond
with something similar. Such responses reflect a belief in the magic
of capitalism and the greatness of America, two pillars of America’s triune
faith. If people can move beyond their denial (and few do), then most of them
have other unproductive reactions.

Some of the more thoughtful rebuttals to the analyses
of Cockburn, Shalom/Albert
and friends move beyond the false dichotomy of
structural analysis or conspiracy theories. Peter Dale Scott has been
integrating the two perspectives with his “deep politics” analytics, as have others.
Here is an excellent
rebuttal to Cockburn and friends’ analysis of the 9/11 evidence. Various
commentators have noted that the radical left’s increasingly caustic attacks on
the 9/11 researcher community are partly due to the growing irrelevance of political-economic
analysis that denies the “deep political” aspect of today’s reality. The good
news is that not all rad lefties are disparaging efforts that challenge
the official version of 9/11. A few years ago, Howard Zinn signed a petition
that questions the official 9/11 story, as did Michael
Parenti. Bill Christison, a former CIA officer and regular contributor to
Counterpunch, wrote that attacking
the 9/11 researchers was counterproductive, and the issue was well worth being
made the subject of intense investigation, as 9/11 has been the casus belli
for all U.S. wars and international aggressions ever since, as well the ongoing
shredding of the Bill of Rights.

It
took me several years of studying a vast array of material, as well as interactions
with many activists from both sides of the divide, to arrive at my current understanding
of the conflict between the “conspiracy theorists” and the “structural analysts.”
The “conspiracy theorists” are often active members of an organized religion,
and Shalom/Albert compared them to religious fanatics.
The notion of conscious manipulation of the global situation by the elites is
consistent with the cosmology of those religious “conspiracy theorists.” They
believe that the universe was consciously created. On the other hand, those subscribing
to the rationalist-materialist paradigm almost invariably subscribe to the Big
Bang and evolution as their creation myth. Even though Einstein believed the universe was intelligently designed,
leading radical leftists have dismissed the notion. With the Big Bang and evolution,
the universe is one big accident, with nobody planning anything. Consciousness
is merely some poorly understood byproduct of chemistry. The competing notions
of the universe being created consciously or randomly go a long way toward understanding
the mutual antagonism between the “conspiracy theorists” and the “structural analysts.”
My worldview has room for evolution and creation. The greatest science
is the science of consciousness, and until scientists begin factoring consciousness
into their equations, they will be playing a small game.

On
the energy issue, Z Magazine published an article a few years ago that
lauded a work of TV fiction that depicted the Rockefeller Empire suppressing
alternative energy a century ago.[9]Such activities are happening today, and
are critical to the human journey and our near-term prospects.

The
people controlling humanity do not need to micromanage the situation. Only a
few leverage points really matter. The primary one, energy, has
run all economies for all time. That is something that Heinberg and friends understand. They also know
that human civilization is doomed if we run out
of energy. Just as most of the giants of physics and those I respect in the free energy field were/are
mystics, the global controllers do not operate within the rationalist-materialist
paradigm. They have a fairly sophisticated understanding of consciousness and
the human condition, and they sometimes use incredible and often diabolical technologies to keep their stranglehold
on humanity. For the initiated, it is obvious that if humanity burned up all
the fossil fuels and did not find another energy source to replace it, today’s
global civilization has several billion “excess” people in it. That is why Heinberg
and friends are called neo-Malthusians, and their solution is for humanity to
immediately shed more than five billion people.

The
problem with paradigms is that they rest on assumptions, and once assumed,
principles are rarely examined afterward. That is how scientists tend to be blinded by the paradigms they were raised with, as
Max Planck observed. The rationalist-materialist
assumptions can be very seductive, and I have seen irrational dismissals of spirituality
by prominent rad lefties, calling it “irrational.” Spirituality is not materialistic,
but can be the pinnacle of rationality, yet
the spiritual masters also realize rationality’s limits. Again, the giants of physics did not subscribe to the rationalist-materialist
paradigm and their breakthroughs did not rely on rational thought processes.
When my mentor invented the world’s best engine in
an instant, he knew that something other than his intellect was responsible.
Scientists tend to call the phenomenon “creativity.” I had a more mundane flash of creative insight long ago, and
knew it did not come from my intellect. Einstein was fond of calling that inspiration
“God” (as have others I have known), but he did not mean a man in a white beard.
Einstein reveled in his “cosmic religious feeling.”

For
the American masses, their checks clear the bank, they punch the clock, watch
the tube, eat at McDonald's and are history’s
fattest humans, but they are also all a few missed paychecks from being homeless.
They are Orwell’s proles. Only when people try to do something
that might alter the paradigm do the global controllers venture out of the shadows
and intervene, such as when they froze $20 billion
that some radical activists had in the bank.

In
summary, the global controllers exist and they are vigilant, but you will never
encounter them unless you begin getting close to the levers of power, and those
levers do not reside in governments. Their organization is a deeply private one
and does not have a name that you would recognize. They stand
far above the alphabet soup U.S. government agencies, transnational corporations
and even international elite groups such as the Bilderbergers and Trilateral Commission.
The sitting U.S. president is just another pretty face.

As
Fuller said, a new political system is not an answer to our problems. All political
actors are “stooges” of the economic interests.
All of history’s political-economic systems have
been based on scarcity and will fade away in the light of an abundance paradigm.
Becoming radical in economics means solving the energy issue and making humanity’s
economic pie a hundred times larger than it is today, instead of fighting to preserve/enlarge
the small slice that the economic “losers” currently receive. All other economic
issues are of secondary importance, and I am asking the radical left to truly
get radical. The left’s current radical economic manifesto
is Michael Albert’s Parecon, which does not even mention energy.
There is an economic reality beyond capitalism that is also beyond scarcity.

When Greer’s ET witnesses are asked why there is a cover-up,
the most common answer is so that free energy,
anti-gravity and other technologies do not make it into the public’s hands, and
not due to benevolent intent – keeping potentially-dangerous technologies from
an irresponsible public – although that argument can be cogently made and is worth
considering (here is a video of
him talking about the situation). I have seen leading leftists disparage the
entire ET/UFO situation as one of “little green men.” I doubt that such disparagers
have actually tried to see a UFO for themselves, which is easy to do. Their ideological objections
to the notion that we are not alone in the universe, and that such beings are
here, now, serve to blind them to the significance of free energy and its
suppression. There is nothing inherently unscientific about those situations
and, in fact, those realities shatter the worldview and professional egos of most
scientists, just as The Brookings Institute warned
NASA about many years ago. People need their feet firmly anchored on the
ground in order to pursue these issues. I have watched people unravel when simply
pondering these issues, and there is plenty of chaff
amongst the free energy field’s wheat.

Healing
Humanity and the Planet

If you are a radical
leftist and made it this far, you may be asking yourself, “Why us? Why would
this guy try to interest us in free energy, abundance and conscious control of
the world economy, which are all such strange ideas?” I do so because every group
I have encountered so far has proven addicted to their scarcity-based ideologies,
and they leave the job to somebody else to pursue the truth and bring free energy
and abundance to the world. Not enough people care enough. Explaining
the predicament that humanity finds itself in today is as simple as that, something
I learned at great personal cost. There seems to be
a greater proportion of people with high integrity in the radical left than in
any other group I have encountered. I hope the radical left has what it takes
to develop a discussion of such novel concepts as abundance and a realistic Utopia. I know it
is feasible, but one person or ten cannot make it happen, not with the global
controllers’ vigilance and the masses’ inertia. A hundred heroes could, but I do not advocate
that approach either. How about if thousands of the awake and awakening simply
discuss it? That may be enough. I do not ask that anybody accept anything on
faith. If a worthy discussion is started, I will invite some highly qualified
people to it.

I was once a board member of the
New Energy Movement, founded by a former astronaut.
They are currently beseeching
the American government for help. While I honor their motivation, in today’s
environment that approach, like all others I have seen, has a faint chance of
success. This open letter can be seen as a complementary attempt in pursuit of
a healed humanity and planet. I have not seen any approach that seems
likely to succeed in today’s world, but we keep trying. Sometimes
the miracle happens, but it generally manifests for the persistent.

The ideas presented in my work are easily explored.
People come from earth’s four corners to a ranch in Washington State to watch UFOs reveal themselves on
request. Discovering your mystical abilities is easily done with
a little training. I do not need to convince rad lefties that such ideologies
as nationalism, capitalism and organized religion
can be very limiting and damaging. The radical left has an advantage over those
still worshipping at those altars. Can anybody think of anything with more potential
than bringing free energy to humanity? Is there anything close?

Using
the world’s scarcest commodity, personal integrity, to bring about an abundance-based
reality is a paradox, which is not necessarily a bad thing; Niels Bohr said that
wrestling with paradoxes is where scientific
progress is made.

I also must present a concept
that is at odds with the attitudes of many radical activists. It relates to realizing
ideals. Bringing an abundance paradigm to humanity would dwarf everything that
came before it. It can be difficult to imagine what a world based on abundance
would look like. It is as idealistic a project as was ever conceived, and the
means become the ends. I have seen too many in the radical left, all
men, advocate violence as a solution. Humanity
has a deep-seated belief in violently redressing grievances, and I have seen prominent
rad lefties advocate coercing the elites (AKA “enemies”) into relinquishing their
power. What they have yet to understand is that the elites’ power has been given
to them by a humanity that refuses to accept responsibility for the world
they live in. The relationship is symbiotic, if dysfunctional. Coercion and
violence only lead to more. As a great master once said,
the way to utterly destroy one’s enemies is by loving them.

If enough people simply became aware and made sufficient
noise about free energy and abundance, the global controllers would probably disappear.
They live in the shadows and cannot abide the light of day. With enlightenment,
there does not need to be any “struggle.”

The
human condition these days is not pretty, and virtually every activist I know
of, who has played at the high levels, has become disgusted with humanity at some point on their
journeys. To one degree or another, they all recovered from their dismay and
disgust, and I believe that their larger, usually mystical, perspective was instrumental
in their recovery. An enlightened mystic sees the divine spark in us all, and
fanning that spark into flame has been the goal of all spiritual masters.

Free energy, abundance and a healed planet can be just around the corner if enough of us can
only imagine it. Is anybody interested in discussing these ideas and pursuing
the evidence supporting them? It does not take very many of us to help
humanity over the hump and heal the planet in the process, and I hope that
some of them may hail from the radical left.[10]

[1]The United States was founded during the era of classic liberalism,
as exemplified by Adam Smith’s writings and those of other Enlightenment philosophers.
Classic liberalism immediately became a dominant American ideology, with considerable
and enduring influence. Classical liberalism is notable for its focus on rationality,
personal freedom and its deep intertwining with economic theory. What we today
call radicalism was born in the same era as classical liberalism, and it took
the ideas of liberalism further and tended to challenge the legitimacy of all
governments and economic institutions. Radical means “going to the root.”

In
these neo-Orwellian days, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” have been often
stripped of their original meaning and even inverted at times. Radicals tend
to operate from a cleaner slate than liberals do, by rejecting more mass assumptions.
An informative recent contrast between liberals and radicals,
both in the United States and Britain, has been their stance regarding the American-British
invasion of Iraq. Liberals have tended to align with the mainstream in defending
the American/British right of unilateral invasion in defiance of the entire world
(while none of the official rationales have withstood scrutiny),
while radicals reject the notion on principle. Recent liberal (and “conservative”
and mainstream) revulsion with the Iraq invasion is that it is “not successful”
in achieving its stated goals, not that the entire enterprise suffered from corrupt
motivation at the outset. Mounting aggressive wars of invasion was the primary
crime that the Nazi officials were convicted of at Nuremburg after World War II.
Ed Herman has described those “liberal” invasion defenders as the Cruise
Missile Left. Today’s liberals also tend to defend the corporate order and
capitalism, while sometimes proposing mild reform; radicals tend to challenge
capitalism in toto. Parecon is the latest
challenge from the radical left to capitalism. Regarding the invasion of Iraq,
liberals tend to completely ignore the economic motive for invading Iraq – i.e.,
capturing the world’s most accessible and lucrative energy deposits – while radicals
say that the economic motive, as with all wars, was paramount,
and extremely so. History often vindicates the radical perspective, and is already
doing so regarding America and the West’s multiple manipulations and invasions
of the Middle East.

American
radical leftists have a relatively unfettered view of world events and have discarded
the ideological crutches that cripple comprehension in America, such as nationalism,
capitalism and organized religion. The liberal left tends to embrace nationalism
and capitalism, although usually with less fervor than the mainstream and those
subscribing to right wing political-economic ideologies. Right wing philosophies
are generally self-serving, while left wing philosophies tend to consider everybody’s
welfare. I see the contrast as a measure of their spiritual maturity.

[2] See “Plan War and the Hubbert Oil Curve,
An interview with Richard Heinberg,” by Dave Ross, Z Magazine, May 2004,
pp. 47-50.

[3] Henry Bauer wrote Scientific Literacy
and the Myth of the Scientific Method to address that issue.

[4] See an easy-to-read presentation of
how Greek teachings were reintroduced to Christian Europe in James Burke’s The
Day the Universe Changed.

[5] This is a subject of immense, if marginalized,
controversy. There have been many theoretical
challenges to the second law in recent years (see also here; a more accessible
argument is here).
The data surrounding Reich’s discovery is controversial, accompanied
by the typical acrimonious exchanges at the margins (the conflict between Paulo
and Alexandra Correa and James DeMeo being a recent example). However, others
have adduced data that brings the second law into question (for instance, here and here). Most
of the free energy technologies that I am aware (see, for instance, 1,
2, 3) of
do not violate the Second Law, but are tapping into an energy source that science
does not currently recognize, which is called the vacuum and other terms.

[10]I have been asked what would happen if enough people imagined
abundance in an enlightened manner. What would the outcome look like? There
are many ways it could look. The simplest would be somebody mounting a free energy
effort (there are plenty
of potential technologies) and having the support of those who can imagine
an abundance paradigm and realize that free
energy would be its cornerstone. It would not even have to be financial help,
just the light of their sentience (and they would not stay quiet about it). They
would not be easily dissuaded/deluded by the power structure’s suppression efforts.
The biggest and most painful lesson I learned was how low
the integrity level of the average American was, and how easily an effort
like ours was derailed, largely with the help of our “allies.” If a hundred people
had supported the effort the way that Mr. Professor
and I did when the gangsters in Ventura lowered the boom (almost certainly at
the global controllers’ behest), the effort would
not have been smashed, but would have been successful. It could be that simple.
Again, a hundred heroes
could do it, but the cost extracted from them can
be rather high. I doubt that the hundred heroes exist, but maybe thousands
of the awake and awakening could simply hold the vision. The disinformation
and outright lying about Dennis Lee’s journey
has been a significant reason why he has not been able to successfully rebuild
his effort. Sterling
Allan’s critique of Dennis’ efforts is the only honest, intelligent and somewhat
informed one that I have ever seen, and I have seen a hundred of them. Again,
if enough people simply loved the truth enough to pursue it, it might be enough.
When the disinformation and attacks come, they hold their vision, because their
understanding is rooted in a love of the truth and the desire to make the world
a better place. Those who readily believed all the lies and/or helped the “bad
guys” bury us do not have the integrity and discernment to help. If enough people
came together with sufficient integrity and sentience, taking action will be the
easy part, because it will be obvious. The hard part is finding those people.